Photographs, Photographers and Photography

November 30, 2008

Natural Redhead

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 5:21 pm

Pure serendipity.

My wife and I were staying downtown San Francisco at the turn of the millenium and when I leaned out of our hotel window, this is what I saw:


Natural Redhead. Christmas, 1999, San Francisco. Leica M6, 50mm Summicron, Kodachrome 64

The original slide was digitized on a Nikon 2000 film scanner and is otherwise unprocessed.

I have been lucky to own many Leitz 50mm Summicron lenses, as befits the greatest optic of the past century. These included a collapsible screw mount one (very early) which I used on a IIIG ‘Barnack’ body. For my M2, M3 and M6 I variously owned single and dual range versions of the fixed mount 7 element design in that gorgeous chrome that only Leica could do in the 1950s. Then there was the six element variant – the one without the infinity catch and the last with a removable head which you could use on your enlarger. I did. And finally the magnificent first version of the Summicron-R for the Leicaflex, which I used on my SL and R4. That one combined Nikon vibrance with Leica subtlety in your color snaps.

All were dear friends, participants and collaborators and if I admit to a favorite – a cruel task indeed, as to elect one for the top rung is to relegate all the others – it would be the six element on my M2 or M6. Many knocked it, and the satin black finish was so …. ugh!, but I liked the high contrast compared to the earlier versions and the low weight. In some respects, its images felt more Nikon than Leica. You know. Where you elect punchiness and contrast over detail.

It’s a trade off I was willing to make at that time of my life – a long time, come to think of it, as that Summicron was a colleague for nigh on twenty years. Do you think you will be able to say that in twenty years regarding your latest purchase?

November 29, 2008

Micro Four Thirds

Filed under: G1/G2 — Thomas Pindelski @ 9:22 am

Yet another format and lens mount?

When Olympus and Panasonic announced their Micro Four Thirds (what?) camera system a few months back, I confess to stifling a yawn. Yet another cropped sensor format with claims to compactness and ‘newness’. Please.

Further, reading preliminary reviews of the first camera to use this format, the Panasonic G1, left me underwhelmed. Sure, the camera was a DSLR and it was small, albeit not much smaller than the smallest DSLRs from Olympus and Pentax, and yes, the camera offered the opportunity of using rationally priced lenses from Leica not otherwise available, but as I am no lover of cropped, small sensors I gave the new products little thought.

However, I chanced on a review of the Panasonic G1 DSLR the other day and noticed something to like amongst the otherwise unexciting product features. The camera, although a DSLR, dispenses with the noisy flapping mirror and bulky pentaprism and condenser lens, replacing both with an electronic viewfinder. Heretofore, every consumer grade camera I have tried with an electronic viewfinder has been simply awful. A small, unsharp image with enormous latency (you move the camera and the image smears and follows along later) made this gimmick of no practical use for photographers. Now, maybe, things are changing, as most reviewers state that the EVF in the G1 is close to optical quality and latency is a thing of the past.

The micro four thirds system uses the same sensor size as the four-thirds one, meaning a 17mm x 13mm useable area, compared to 36mm x 24mm for full frame 35mm DSLRs. However, the cameras use a smaller lens mount for lenses, as these no longer have to be designed to clear a flapping mirror, as no mirror is used.

Why is this interesting? Well, it’s no secret that while I find the Panasonic LX-1 point-and-shoot a usable proposition – click in the left column to learn more – no one could accuse the microscopic sensor in this camera of boasting great image quality or low noise. Nor is the poor shutter lag anything to get excited about. And I continue to long for a truly pocketable camera with a proper viewfinder (no, not an LCD screen) to emulate the film Leica of yore with the addition of a half decent digital sensor. The one used in the micro four thirds cameras is many times the surface area of that in the LX1 so there is hope. As for the Leica M8, I consider its price and feature set to be nothing more than a joke. Limited automation, ridiculous and bulky variable focus length lenses (not true zooms) and a viewfinder last perfected in 1954 on the Leica M3 by a factory with little capital which checked its design originality at the door in 1938 or so.

However, the Panasonic G1 is of no interest to me, as for some reason Panasonic has seen fit to emulate the traditional SLR-looking design of the body, rather than doing something really revolutionary. Maybe they felt that buyers would turn away from something with true minituarisation and new looks, which only prompts me to ask why bother when like size can be had in the smallest Olympus DSLR for a fraction of the G1’s $800 price tag?


The Panasonic G1. Yet another DSLR-shaped waste of capital investment

But there is hope. If the EVF really is as good as the reviewers say (I have yet to try it) then there is no reason why the manufacturers shouldn’t get rid of the faux prism hump, making the whole thing yet smaller, and still permit the use of those great Leica lenses, the latter being easily the best feature of my Panasonic LX1. And, hey presto!, before you know it you have a camera as small as the Leica CL, that little jewel made by Minolta all those years ago, with all the advantages of automatic-everything and image stabilization to boot. And no noise or vibration from that wretched flapping mirror.


The (Minolta) Leica CL, first sold in 1973. A sweet full frame film camera with Leica interchangeable lenses.

So, Olympus and Panasonic, given that you have some of the best designers on this earth and have made the rational and praiseworthy decision to delegate the optical part to the best there is – Leica – why not a truly innovative update of the classic rangefinder camera body for those of us praying for something like this for over a decade? I will be the first in line to buy one if noise is low and shutterlag minimal. And while I’m at it, why is shutter lag hardly ever mentioned by reviewers? I can only think they are conflicted by commercial consderations or, more likely, judging by the quality of the test snaps included with many reviews, these people have yet to learn the difference between a good photograph and a hole in the gound.

November 27, 2008

Happy Thanksgiving

Filed under: Photography — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:49 am

The best time of the year.

This year we are blessed with friends from England and my in laws from San Diego. I managed to track down a Diestel turkey – you know, the kind that wanders California’s great wide expanses while listening to Mozart. This translates into a tasty and juicy bird.

And, in protest against our government’s woeful ways with our money and our citizenry’s placid, nay, complicit, acceptance of the rape of our economy, the wines this year are Spanish (a nice Rioja to start) and French (thank you Bordeaux!) Even the port is from where port should be from, meaning Portugal, US winemakers being clueless when it comes to making this grog.

On the hardware front I have finally invested in a genuine French Sabatier chef’s knife. It’s from Thiers, in France, and if you decide to get one be super careful as the name is not trade marked, meaning there are lots of nasty imitations out there. You will not find this one at WalMart. The one I got has a carbon steel (non-stainless) blade, meaning a little more care is called for when cleaning, but provides a far keener and longer lasting edge, something stainless steel cannot equal. I toyed with the idea of one of those Japanese ones where the metal has been folded on itself a billion times or something, like one of those Samurai swords, but found the look beyond ugly. Form cannot be forgotten even when function is superior.

I was rather taken with the ‘rosewood’ handle on this one, though it’s actually epoxy. Unlike Apple’s deceitful ads (twice as fast, twice as light, blah blah blah) this one makes no claim to anything other than a sharp edge. Heck, it will rust on you before you can say Vive la France if you don’t dry and oil it after use. Note the lovely design of the bolster, where the blade enters the handle. Unlike your camera, this will still be a current model in fifty or a hundred years’ time. And spare parts will remain available ….

Sharpening? Why trust the Village Idiot with missing digits to do this the old way? The answer is the right tool to confer the right angles of grind and a proper steeling, something your local ‘expert’ knife sharpener knows nothing of. I use one of these and immediately ran my new knife through it producing, yes you guessed it, a finer edge than the factory managed before shipping. Proof? How about two millimeter thick tomato slices, the skin intact? The ultimate test of a kitchen knife.


The ultimate test. Two millimeter thick tomato slices.


The Chef 130 knife sharpener’s Stage 2 burnishing steel, removed for clarity.

After re-establishing the proper 25 degree edges on your trashed knives – using the Stage 1 coarse diamond wheel – you pass the blade over the Stage 2 burnishing steel a dozen times a side. Then one final quick swipe through the fine stropping wheel in Stage 3 and you are set. In each case, you torque the knife’s handle so that the blade is gently forced against the tool, something the instructions fail to point out. So twist CCW on the left and CW on the right. Thereafter a swipe across the Stage 2 steel every now and then is all that’s needed and the amount of material you will be removing will be one thousandth of that destroyed by the Village Idiot. And Stage 2 needs no mains power – it’s simply a stationery hard steel.

Well, I’m off to the kitchen where the bird awaits.


Diestel turkey with rosemary from the garden, ready for the oven.

Happy Thanksgiving.

November 26, 2008

In the tide pool

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 9:07 am

Wading about

On a favorite, secluded beach off Highway One the other day, I was wading about in the tide pools at low tide and came across this beautiful collection of kelp. Well hidden in the shade of a giant boulder, it was a moment’s work with the ring flash to bring out the gorgeous cornucopia of colors, shapes and textures otherwise hidden from view.


5D, 100mm macro, ring flash, 1/60, f/4, ISO 200

The auto-everything E-TTL of the ring flash makes this sort of thing close to child’s play. Just bring your imagination.

Tide tables are very useful for this sort of thing as you don’t want to arrive at high tide. These are my local ones.

November 25, 2008

Exciting times for medium format digital

Filed under: Cameras — Thomas Pindelski @ 9:30 am

Bigger sensors and cheaper cameras coming.

Right now if you want a step up in sensor size (and dynamic range, resolution, color fidelity, etc.) your choices have been limited to the established Hasselblad (made by Fuji) H3D range which tops out at 50 megapixels from a 48mm x 36mm Kodak sensor and costs more than most new cars. There’s a coming offering from Mamiya, the DL28 at $15,000 and Pentax is rumored to have filed patent papers for a medium format DSLR. The latter makes especial sense given that Pentax already has fine medium format lenses available for both 6×7cm and 6×4.5cm film formats.

Now rumors abound of a medium format offering from Nikon which may be 48×48mm or 48×36mm (like the Leica S2 at $40,000 and counting) and may be a DSLR or a rangefinder along the lines of the great Mamiya 6 and 7. I used a 6 for many years and just loved the compromise of negative size and reasonable bulk in a near-silent rangefinder body.

The significance of these rumors is that Nikon is more than likely to make a working proposition of a medium format digital than most. The Hasselblad relies on the traditional waist level format at a ridiculous price. I haven’t used one but reviews suggest the camera is clunky in the extreme with slow operating controls, a lousy LCD display and limited in-camera adjustments, not to mention seriously compromised metering. So the rumors about Nikon are especially appealing. If Nikon can confer its trade mark ease of use on a medium format body with a 50 megapixel low noise sensor at a price of, say, $10,000, I do believe the floodgates will open. Any number of pros and advanced amateurs will hold their breath at the price, much as they did when Canon started asking $7,000 for its pro full frame 1Ds bodies, but will nevertheless bite the bullet. With so relatively few pixels on such a large sensor the image quality should easily match 4 x 5 film cameras at a fraction of the weight and inconvenience, not to mention an increase of an order of magnitude in productivity. Have you ever tried scanning 4×5 film? I have. Not fun and not fast.

Whatever the rumors, this all spells good news for image quality mavens. More sensors by more manufacturers will mean lower prices and we can expect to see better ergonomics as manufacturers learn from smaller format DSLRs which have largely got the user interface right.

Finally, there’s the Phase One 645 body (looking for all the world like the Mamiya DL28 but with a Phase One back rather than a Leaf), rumored to take all sorts of different lenses from Hasselblad and Pentax. These are exciting times.

Probably costly, but this is all pointing in the right direction.

November 24, 2008

HP Designjet paper profiles in Lightroom 2

Filed under: Lightroom, Printing — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:44 am

Trust HP to design this for engineers, not humans

In yesterday’s column I mentioned the existence of aftermarket profiles for some interesting papers made by the likes of Hahnemühle and Arches. These are swellable papers designed to absorb the ink dyes used in the HP DJ 30/90/130 printers. That’s all well and good, but how on earth do you get these to show up as choices in Lightroom when you are in the Print module? Especially as the instructions from HP for the right place to install these simply do not work.

Well, HP is first and foremost an engineering company which means that things obvious to engineering graduates are gobbledeegook to regular humans. Mercifully, your instructor, Dr. Pindelski, happens to have an engineering degree, so if you use an HP Designjet 30, 90 or 130 printer, follow the instructions below and all will be well …. so long as you have the good sense to get a life and use a Mac. PC users can probably figure things out from what follows, but please do not ask as I neither use nor propose to ever use a PC again.

Here’s the Print module in LR2:

Click on ‘Managed by Printer’ then click ‘Other’ and you get a listing of the standard HP paper profiles:

Now go to Finder and click on the Library (this is the Mac’s library on the root of your internal hard drive, not the one under your name in Users) and navigate to the directory show – navigation is from bottom to top:

Your Finder screen now looks like this:

Now Control-Click on the file named ‘hp_designjet_pm.plugin’ then click on ‘Show Package Contents’:

Now drag and drop the downloaded package of profiles (see yesterday’s entry for the download link) onto the directory named ‘ICCProfiles’:

The ‘designjet’ directory is the one with the new profiles, which you just dragged and dropped.

Click on the ‘designjet’ directory in ‘ICCProfiles’ and you will see all the additional profiles, thus:

The remaining task is to edit the ICC profiles of your choice so that they will show up in the LR2 drop-down box. The snag is that you have to use one of the tailored HP name strings to force the choice to show. This means two things:

1 – You must use a file name identical to one of the existing ones used by HP for their papers
2 – You will have to embed your profile description of choice in the replacement new paper profile for it to display meaningfully in the LR2 drop-down box.

First, then, we have to determine which of HP’s standard paper choices we can dispense with. That’s easy, because you didn’t buy this fabulous printer to use Brochure or Proofing paper or for that matter generic Coated paper, so that means at least nine of HP’s file names can be reused. Further, if you stick with the ‘Max Detail’ drivers, you get even more redundant file names to use – and why would you want anything but maximum detail in your display prints?

First, determine the new papers for which you would like to install profiles – here’s the list from the file downloaded from HP:

I’m intrigued by the Arches, Hahnemuhle and Ilford papers. so in the following screen snap I have erased those imported profiles which are not wanted and also erased all the clutter from the inclusion of the HP Z2100/Z3100 profiles which are for HP’s latest – and very expensive – wide carriage pigment printer, thus:

As I am adding nine new profiles I will need to reuse nine of HP’s file names to make these show up – here’s the ‘conversion’ table:

To embed these paper names in the new profile ICC files we have to edit the profiles, rename them using HP’s cryptic file naming convention, rename the original files rather than erase them, in case they are needed in future, then move the new files down one level in the directory so that LR2 can read them.

Double-click on the first new file, the one for Arches Infinity Smooth 230 paper. You will see this as Colorsync opens:

Click on ‘Localized description strings’ and enter the name you want for the paper of choice – the default looks like this:

Those names are awful (this is the text which will show up in LR2) so I make them more user friendly, like so:

Now save the file in Colorsync (Command-S) and move on to the next one, repeating as necessary with descriptive names for each paper.

Next we have to rename the original files which are no longer needed; I do this by simply appending the text “.old” to the name of the original file; use the conversion table you created above to determine which files need to have ‘.old’ appended to their names:

Next, rename the new paper profile files using the old HP file names – the same ones where you just added the “.old” extension, like so, repeating for each new profile and making sure to use unique HP file names from the original files, with no duplications:

Here all all the name changes on the new files:

Finally, drag these renamed .icc files down one level to where the “.old” files reside, thus:

Load LR2 and click on Profile->Other in the Print module and this is what you will see:

To further clarify matters, I then add the text “HP” to the HP paper profiles, using Colorsync as before, with the following result – compare with the previous screen snap:

Now check all the boxes thus to make these properly named profiles show up in future when you click in LR2 and hit ‘OK’:

Next time you click profiles in the LR2 Print module you will see this:

Select the profile of your choice, load the appropriate paper in the printer and off you go! But do first make sure your display is profiled properly and, of course, I highly recommend Dr. P’s free screen profiling approach which will not only save you money on the colorimeter you do not need, but will get you more accurate colors to boot.

I took the additional precaution of making the new, renamed .icc files ‘read only’ to make sure that any new profile or application updates do not overwrite the files created above. You can do this by control-clicking the .icc file, clicking on ‘Get Info’ and making it ‘read only’ in the dialog box that pops up.

Why use printer-managed profiles rather than application managed colors? For the simple – and vital – reason that when you hit Print->Preview in LR2, Apple’s Preview application will display a Preview; at the lower left you will see a box for previewing the print on the screen using the color profile you have chosen – so much for all the ‘experts’ who maintain that you cannot soft proof with applied paper profiles in Lightroom:

You are now viewing a Print Preview of your picture with the paper profile of choice applied to the image. And you can use a selection of non-HP branded printing papers. What’s not to like?

And I can think of no better time to buy one of the truly great wide carriage printer bargains – HP still lists the Designjet 90 (18″) for $995 and the Designjet 130 for $1,295 (24″). I would not hesitate to buy another today and do, on rare occasions, rue the fact that I did not buy the 24″ model as the form factor is much the same with six inches added to the width. Either takes up little room for such a large format printer. OK, so they go ‘clankity-clank’ when they print, but you can afford ear plugs from the $2,000 saved on not buying their latest Z series machines. And ink use is so frugal, even a Scot would approve.

November 23, 2008

Latest ICC color profiles for HP Designjet dye printers

Filed under: Printing — Thomas Pindelski @ 9:27 am

HP updated these recently

While I have been a happy user of HP’s branded papers exclusively for my Designjet 90 18″ wide dye printer, HP does not entirely neglect the aftermarket for paper makers.

Indeed, HP has recently updated a bunch of color profiles for some well known papers which feature the swellable/absorbent surface of HP’s paper, allowing the printer’s dye inks to be properly absorbed. These are for use with the Designjet 30/90/130 series of printers.

Here are the papers supported, with details of how to feed the paper into your printer – tray, rear slot or roll (by the way, I always use the tray to (multi-)sheet feed my 13″ x 19″ and 18″ x 24″ HP Premium Plus Photo Satin paper and have had no issues):

As you can see, HP recommends that many of the heaviest papers are loaded one sheet at a time. For reference, HP’s Premium Plus Photo Satin weighs in at 286 grams/sq. meter, whereas the heaviest William Turner is 310. I suspect, but cannot confirm, that HP’s papers are made by Hahnemühle which has been around since 1584, so they just missed making the stock for Gutenberg’s bible, printed in the 1450s. Hahnemühle references the HP relationship here.

Here’s their data sheet on the heavier William Turner paper:

Many stockists carry it, not least of all Atlex which I have found to be reliable. The William Turner comes in sizes up to 17″ x 22″ or in larger rolls – these you would have to cut down first. Sounds like an interesting option for HP users and, as I mentioned recently, I would be a buyer of the HP DJ 90 or 130 (24″ wide) today – it’s not like parts and supplies are about to disappear for a printer which shares consumables with the DJ 30 (13″ wide) which sold in vast numbers to photographers everywhere. And, at its price, the wide carriage HP has no competition.

Finally, why dye based inks in preference to pigments which now dominate the market? Can you say lousy blacks? Bronzing? We dye printer users know nothing of those issues.

In tomorrow’s column I will provide a step-by-step guide to making new profiles of your choice, for non-HP branded papers, display correctly within Lightroom 2 because, goodness knows, HP’s installation instructions are about as wrong as you can get. Suffice it to say that if you follow mine, your profiles will display correctly in LR2 thus:

November 22, 2008

20 snaps = 1 gigabyte

Filed under: Cameras — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:59 am

This is getting ridiculous.

The soon-to-be-available Canon 5D/II consumes some 22 megabytes per image. Child’s play. How about 50 mb a pop?


The Hasselblad H3D50 medium format digital camera

So twenty snaps on this baby (made by Fuji, by the way, not by flaxen haired Swedish maidens) dictate one gigabyte of storage. Or, stated differently, your one terabyte hard drive where you store these will hold a mere 20,000 pictures.

And before you stock up on hard drives, what sort of processing power are you going to need to manipulate those huge images? Presumably a top-of-the-line MacPro with multiple CPUs. And, of course, a couple of 30″ Cinema Displays to do justice to the $30k you just blew on the camera. Add another $10k for computer hardware.

My, digital is expensive. Guess I’ll be sticking with the 12 mb images from my 5D/I a while longer. The body and seven lenses ran me under $9k, but really cost nothing in cash outlay as I sold all my Leica and Rollei gear to finance the Canon. Chump change, eh? I suppose I should add another $900 for the MacBook and $300 for more memory and disk storage, but I use that for lots of other things, too. At least my HP DJ90 wide carriage printer should work with the Hassy, no?

November 21, 2008

The best fisherman

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:39 am

This chap knows a thing or two.

Mooching about Morro Bay the other evening and what do I see?

Why, the very best fisherman there is, and he uses no rod or reel.


5D, 24-105mm at 67mm, 1/2000, f/5.6, ISO 400

Wander out to the central California Pacific coast any evening and you will see whole squadrons of these experts, trolling for an easy meal.

Once I saw maybe fifty or so, all hovering at twenty feet, then executing a power dive, wings back, and swimming underwater after their prey. I often get the feeling we have learned little from the animal world.

November 20, 2008

At the beach

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:56 am

Surprise guests.

You never know what you will encounter at the Pacific.

These two jellyfish were sunning themselves while waiting for the tide to roll in.


5D, 24-105mm at 58mm, 1/180, f/11, ISO 400

You can see how their transparent bodies refract the stones on the beach underneath. What an animal!

November 19, 2008

Camera profiles in Lightroom

Filed under: Lightroom — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:27 am

Now you can match the manufacturer’s intent.

I have generally avoided using Canon’s DPP Professional software which comes with the 5D. Clunky, slow, limited in application and not integrated with my man processing ‘engine’ – Lightroom – plus all those comedic spelling errors, well, it’s all just too much. Or too little.

Now Adobe has made it possible to view your RAW imports in Lightroom (and this only works for RAW images) emulating the manufacturer’s software. So instead of viewing your images in the latest Adobe Camera Raw profile, you can get to look at them in what DPP Professional would do. The differences are easily seen on the screen.

Point your browser to this address and download the profile package:

Now when you next start Lightroom 2 you will see the following in the Develop panel:

Click the drop down box and the camera specific profiles appear:

So if you are still using DPP, forget about it, download the profiles into LR2 and you have all you need in one place.

Here’s a snap processed using the Camera Landscape Beta 2 profile – note the warmth in the rose:


5D, 400mm ‘L’, 1/500, f/5.6, ISO 250

November 18, 2008

Linhof S168 tripod

Filed under: Technique — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:02 am

Made in West Germany – which quality once called home.

Back in the fifties, the final flowering of the machine age, if you wanted quality in photo gear you used a Leica. However, if you wanted real quality in your pictures, we are talking billboard sized prints here, you used a Linhof. This apogee of field camera design, in the many Technika models, came mostly in 4″ x 5″ size and was the love of industrial photographers across the world. In addition to a broad range of Zeiss and Schneider lenses, you could fit any number of accessories to your Linhof and make it sing. But the only thing you would fit your Linhof on was a Linhof tripod. Naturally.

I have owned mine some twenty years and it will likely go to the grave with me, though I suspect it will refuse to melt when my body is subjected to the fires of hell in the incinerator. I have never understood why one would want to waste valuable real estate on all those tombs, Père Lachaise and Hampsead being the only exceptions where this sort of thing makes sense. A world where we cannot commune with Chopin would be a sadder place.

All my recent work with multiple images – HDR, panoramas and now Helicon Focus – suggested a piece might be in order about the tripod I use as these techniques dictate one is used. No, its not a $1,000 carbon fiber Gitzo, much as that would be nice to have.

My Linhof tripod came (for very few dollars) with a Linhof pan and tilt head, useless for still photography, so I replaced it first with a Leitz ball and socket head and, later, with the funky Novoflex Mini Magic. Plus, of course, a Manfrotto QR plate. The nice Leitz head now happily makes its home on my Manfrotto monopod.

Over the years I have had to install three new rubber feet (they are retained with circlips) and had to glue the broken center column knob with epoxy after it disintegrated. It now looks worse but is much tougher and I sure as hell was not going to pay Linhof $40 for a replacement. The use of light alloys makes the tripod easy to carry though not as light, maybe, as the latest, costly carbon fiber and basalt creations. I console myself with the thought that the extra exercise is good for me!

Despite my best efforts to destroy the sliding legs with multiple immersions in sand, mud and sea water, the Linhof laughs at my amateurishness and soldiers on. After a day at the beach I flush it with tap water, pad it dry and it’s ready to go. No nasty, sticky, dirt-loving lubricants needed. Further, the main leg sections are rubber coated, so your tripod does not accrue that totally ghastly scarred look after a few years’ hard use.


The Linhof S168 – 29″ tall when collapsed

There is only one right way to enhance stability and that is with cantilevers. Ask any bridge builder. Linhof got that totally right with these light yet strong ‘C section’ beams.


Massive cantilevered legs

To be useful a tripod must be capable of rapid deployment, and the push button sprung lower leg releases means erection is a matter of three or four seconds. For the most part the long, two section center column suffices for the rest of the extension. The Manfrotto plate means that attaching the camera is instantaneous – obsoleting yet another reason to avoid using a tripod.


Quick release lower leg section. The twist collar releases the upper section.

If you are working on an uneven surface, the twist collar sections can be selectively deployed (the push button sections are ‘all or nothing’) to even things up. I rarely use them.

The leg tips can be extended for hard surfaces.


Extendable rubber tip. Note the coarse threads which aid in dirt removal under the tap.

Or retracted for slippery ones.


Spike for your favorite oak floor

The column knob benefitted from some epoxy a few years ago. The built-in spirit level works fine …. and is totally useless.


Epoxied plastic knob. Germans and plastics simply do not mix ….

And you want to go really high?


Did I say this thing was tall? I’m 6′ of the total extension!

The Linhof S168 gets so many things right I would be rushing out and searching for one if I were you. Tripods simply do not get any better and a couple of enhancements (ball head, QR plate) make it the most quickly deployed and most sheerly useable tripod there is. If you are searching for a good, used Linhof, I strongly advise looking for a model with the cantilevered legs as these add tremendous stability for a minor weight penalty, and greatly ease deployment. It’s worth the wait for the right one as this will be the last tripod you buy.

The other manufacturer I would look at from that period were I searching for a top quality heirloom tripod would be Schiansky. It’s a name you no longer hear but they made a superb range of tripods at the time the Linhof S168 was on the market.

November 17, 2008

The 400mm close-up lens

Filed under: Technique — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:58 am

Helicon to the rescue.

Go to Helicon’s web site and you will, understandably, see many examples of the use of this application in insect photography. That’s a natural given the miniscule depth of field for such small subjects in extreme close-up.

But how about at the other end of the spectrum, when used with really long lenses?

Well, it turns out Helicon Focus is every bit as capable.

In the following example I was taking snaps of the maple tree, in full fall color, at a very close distance (maybe 15 feet) using the 400mm lens at maximum aperture. This renders the background as a complete blur, but also very much restricts depth of focus in the subject, as this picture discloses:


Maple leaves. 5D, 400mm ‘L’, 1/500, f/5.6, ISO 250

I took nine images with the lens on manual focus focusing through the depth of the subject. Helicon refused to combine these, so I took out the first and last (which, on closer examination, had nothing sharp anywhere) and tried again. Success.


Composite of seven images using Helicon Focus. Manual exposure setting.

Why not simply close down the aperture and take one snap? First, that would dictate a very slow shutter speed with the attendant risk of camera shake even though the camera was mounted on a solid tripod. Second, there’s no guarantee at these short distances that everything would, in fact, be sharp, as 400mm lenses have little depth of field at any aperture, and depth-of-field preview in SLRs is near useless at small apertures. The Helicon approach generates an image which simply pops from the background while in no way changing the blur. Formerly blurred twigs now no longer detract from the image and the result is dramatic and natural looking.

Snags? Well, your subject has to be stationary, you must use a tripod and on close examinaton you can see some ghosting here and there:


Detail of ‘ghosting’ in the combined image

But when you realize that this enlargement is consonant with a print size of 40″ x 30″ and the effect is not objectionable, it’s something I can easily live with when balanced against the advantages of the technique. And who knows? When Danylo Kozub and his fellow geniuses at Helicon release the much awaited updated Mac version maybe even this minor issue will be resolved?

So Helicon is not just for the macro and microscope photographers amongst us.

November 16, 2008

Lightroom 2 Upgrade

Filed under: Lightroom — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:34 am

Painless, amazingly.

My extensive tests with the free trial version of Lightroom 2 confirmed that the product is stable and debugged and I now find I cannot live without the localized adjustment features LR2 added. Not to mention enhanced keywording and search functions. Hopefully Adobe will add keystone/perspective correction in the next version and I will be able to bid a not-so-fond farewell to Photoshop CS2 (and its many predecessors), that user interface nightmare of a product.

Having had nothing but trouble upgrading Adobe products in the past I approached the idea of an online upgrade of Lightroom 1.4.1 to Lightroom 2 ($99) with trepidation.

Mercifully all went well.

Pay your $99 – assuming you have a version of LR1 on your computer – and off you go:


Download in progress – you have to elect either the Mac or Winblows version.


The new serial number is provided for input.


Old and new numbers input and she’s ready to go! I have blurred out the last four digits for security – you have twenty thousand guesses!

Even though I had the trial version already loaded, Adobe insisted on uploading the whole thing again – no big deal as it only took a minute or two.

My only complaint so far is that the auto-masking feature, when applied to large areas, is very sluggish. Now I must try the application on our old iMac G4 (PPC, 1.25gHz) and see how well it works on a relatively ancient machine.

If you do not have LR1 then LR2 will run you $299 – $100 more than Apple’s Aperture. Adobe has no earthly reason to drop the price to compete with Apple’s offering. If you elect the latter, be prepared to blow another $2-3,000 on a machine which might actually run it at something approaching reasonable speed. If you don’t believe me, stop by an Apple Store with your favorite RAW file and load it in Aperture on a MacBook. Then try the crop tool. Convinced?

November 15, 2008

Redrum

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:39 am

A memory of a tour de force.

I suspect many might agree that the scariest film ever made is Kubrick’s ‘The Shining’ with a manic Jack Nicholson generally waging mayhem in an off-season holiday hotel.

For fans of Diane Arbus’s work there’s an image of the two little girls side by side, just like in her photograph. That’s right before the room fills with blood, that is.

The opening scene, where the camera seems to go off a cliff while the car it’s following proceeds straight on, is one of the first uses of the Steadicam in motion pictures. Right at the beginning, it will have you gripping your seat for the next 2 hours. I saw ‘The Shining’ in 1980 when it came out and am still too scared to risk it again. But the many images in the movie have stuck in my unconscious, not least the child on the tricycle mouthing “Redrum, redrum”. Check it in the mirror ….

Well, I still have Redrum Moments of flashback to the movie and the latest happened the other day in late sun.


5D, 24-105mm at 73mm, 1/180, f/16, ISO 400

Quite what this bizarrely colored VeeDub was doing in someone’s garden beats me, but you cannot beat the scary contrast of colors, pretty much unretouched. And that open door does little to calm the tension.

November 14, 2008

Lightroom 2 – Keywording

Filed under: Lightroom — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:44 am

I have been putting this off for too long.

I have been putting off adding keywords to the pictures in my Lightroom database in much the same way as stock market investors prefer denial to fact. Open that statement in the mailbox and, yes, you too will be apprised of this year’s 40% drop in value. That’s the result of the foolish “stay fully invested” mantra of the past two bull decades which has been brainwashed into your psyche by amoral advisers seeking only to maximize their fees. This is by no stretch of the imagination a financial blog – though I do like to point out photography equipment bargains when I see them – but suffice it to say that after the 1929 crash the Dow index did not return to pre-1929 levels until …. 1954. So the ‘fully invested’ bunch, or what was left of it, had to wait out a war and 25 years later they had devalued dollars equal in amount to their 1929 investment.

But, like that reluctant letter opener, I have preferred to fool myself that my Lightroom cataloging system, which heretofore has avoided the use of keywords, would serve me well, added by a solid dose of good memory to help find things in a trice.

Wrong.

I am now finding that it’s getting increasingly difficult to locate a treasured snap in short order. Was that snap of the wife in Bermuda in ‘Cityscapes’ or under ‘Wife’? Was that picture of our sweet little boy, Winston, under ‘Playground’ or ‘Winston’ or ‘Birthdays’?

Here’s how I have ordered my folders:


In LR2, the green light refers to the active drive. The numbers indicate that I have 207gB left on a 465gB drive

Click on, say, the ‘Beach and Sea’ containing folder and you get:

Well, you get the idea. As long as you remember that the snap you want is in ‘Beach and Sea’ the rest is plain sailing. Snag is, sometimes it’s simply not where you would logically place it today and memory tends to fade.

Now that Lightroom 2 has made key wording easier and faster, if no less tedious, I have resolved to add keywords to as many of my pictures as makes sense and I am disciplining myself to do a hundred or so a day. Rather than doing this one by one, I assemble those that need generic keywords – ‘monochrome’ or ‘grain effect’ for example – and do a batch add of the relevant words. In a final pass I will add image specific keywords where warranted, the goal being that a keyword search renders a handful of results.

A related motivating factor is that my catalog of images (the keepers, that is) is growing faster than in days past, owing to the higher success rate of digital technology and greater availability of time for my hobby compared with those days when I was putting in 60+ hour weeks on Wall Street.

Here are some of the keywords I have added – note that I have replicated the folder names in case I ever decide to scrap or revise the folder structure. I have then started adding new keywords like ‘Red’ which identify pictures with strong red content:

LR2 allows you to drag and drop keywords onto image(s) so the process is fairly fast. The tricky bit is coming up with image specific words that make sense. “How would I think of this image were I looking for it?” is the recurring question.

Now when I wish to locate all files matching a specific keyword, I go to the right hand panel of LR2, highlight the word and click the arrow to the right – here’s the result of clicking on ‘Cemeteries’:

Keywords can be stacked for compound searches, though the technology in LR2 still trails Aperture’s where you can select a filter with boolean keyword input, using ‘if’, ‘and’ and ‘or’ logic. I have no doubt that this will eventually come to Lightroom.

So far I have encountered one snag. If you stack images of like kind (I stack composite HDR images for example as all go towards one result once merged) and leave the stack closed when keywording, only the top picture in the stack will be keyworded. If you subsequently change the top picture in the stack you will not be able to find the new one if you forgot to keyword it. To work around this I simply open all the stacks in the Library before keywording, so that all pictures in a stack have the keyword applied.

I have been banging away at LR2, moving files and folders, stacking, copying, processing, exporting and adding keywords for a while now and have had no lock-ups. The only time the application really bogged down was when I tried using the adjustment brush with auto-masking switched on to paint in a large, irregular sky area. I got the spinning beach ball while the overtaxed, modest GPU (Intel GMA 3100) in my MacBook did the data crunching. Mercifully, this is not something I expect to do often. At 4 megabytes of RAM it’s not like I’m hurting for CPU memory so I’m blaming the graphics processor for this one!

If I decide to upgrade to LR2 (I’m using the 30 day free trial which comes fully featured) I’ll give it a run on our old iMac G4 ’screen on a stick’ which continues to soldier away as a great Internet browser. That will answer the question of how well LR2 runs on older PPC CPU Macs. I can confirm that LR 1.4.1 runs well on this computer if nowhere as fast as on the MacBook. It remains more than useable for those looking for a low entry price to the world of Lightroom processing. The latest version of Aperture does not run at acceptable speeds on older machines like this one, whose G4 CPU runs at 1.25gHz and has just one core compared to the Intel’s two. One of the most distinguishing features of LR 1.4.1 is its speed on these old but still useful machines. Let’s hope that has been retained in LR2.

By the way, for those readers into this sort of thing, here are some interesting statistics on LR vs Aperture users from the Adobe blog. Probably self-serving given that this is Adobe’s data, but interesting all the same. Sample sizes are not stated in this survey:

I have questioned Apple’s commitment to Aperture before (no critical mass, no significant profit) and have little reason to change that opinion. And as I can testify, the conversion process from Aperture to Lightroom is not pretty. So the sooner you switch, the better. Adobe does this for a living; to Apple it’s a rounding error.

Enough talk. Here’s a snap from the beach, a composite of four images combined using Helicon Focus:


Kelp. 5D, 100mm macro and ring flash, 1/100, f/22, ISO400. Composite of four images using Helicon Focus.

November 13, 2008

Sensor cleaning on the cheap

Filed under: 5D — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:16 am

Don’t be ripped off.

It’s no great secret that the sensors in earlier DSLRs can get awfully dirty, the resulting blobs of black on your image testifying to the need for lots of retouching. Just like in the film days when you received your precious emulsion back from the processing place only to find that they had a party during which they stomped on your images with hobnailed boots.

So those of us not blessed with the latest in sensor dust removal technologies (meaning 5D Mark I and like vintage camera users) have to subject their camera to a nervy-dervy sensor cleaning to get the muck off and obviate the retouching. In the Canon 5D the sensior is protected by a sheet of quartz crystal – both hard and dust attracting. Now you can play into the hands of those marketers selling you Genuine Sensor Cleaning Kits for hundreds of dollars and what do you get?


A fool and his money are easily parted.

Why, a brush with some mumbo jumbo about how it’s grease free and assembled by Chinese virgins, and a bottle of isopropyl alcohol. Enough for ten cleanings.

Well, let me introduce you to Dr.Pindelski’s $15 DIY Economy Sensor Cleaning Kit. Enough for 10,000 cleanings.


The Dr. Pindelski $15 Sensor Cleaning Kit. The moiré pattern on the sensor is caused by the point-and-shoot used to take this.

Start with a Pearstone brush for $10, add a bottle of 91% Isopropyl Alcohol (you want the most concentrated, to avoid water deposits) and some Q tips from the bathroom – the genuine soft ones, not the hard generics. Do not use Kodak Lens Cleaner – this is a very poorly thought out product and is guaranteed to leave water stains on your sensor and those will be clearly visible, and near impossible to retouch, in your images.

Go outside, take a snap of the sky at a small aperture (set the camera to manual focus if the shutter refuses to fire) and load your CF or SD card into Lightroom. Increase contrast to the maximum and all the dirt blobs and deposits will show up clearly. Remember that what you see at the top right of the picture indicates dust at the lower left of the sensor and so on, as the image on the sensor is flipped and reversed once it has passed through the lens.

Now moisten a Kleenex (use plain ones, not those infused with lotions) with the Isopropyl and dab a Q tip in the moist area of the tissue, so that the Q tip is just moist. Do not touch the cotton on the Q tip with your dirty, greasy fingers. Sensors don’t like grease – or maybe they love it too much. Set the camera to Sensor Cleaning, remove the lens and dab the area concerned based on the sky picture you just snapped.. Then, holding the camera upside down, sensor pointing to the floor, brush the sensor with a flicking action using the brush. Reinsert the card and lens and take another picture. Repeat until clean.

My last cleaning dictated no fewer than four passes, the sensor cover glass being simply filthy after a couple of days snapping at the beach.

How hard to press on that Q tip? Well, the cover glass on the sensor is very tough and it would take a Mack truck driver to damage it, but pressure is not the answer. Gentle application in the right area is the secret. You want to dab and flick, not scrub. What I studiously avoid is using a blower brush on the sensor. All that does is stir up any existing dust in the body cavity only to propel it at 100mph+ into your sensor. You don’t really want to do that, do you?

Now you can apply that $245 saved to that new lens you were dreaming about.

If all you do with your images from that wonderful DSLR is to place them on the web at some 640×480 pixels, well, you can dispense with sensor cleaning as the dust spots will not show. Your DSLR is just like the Ferrari of the guy who runs it to the supermarket to be seen and to get some milk. Feels nice. Waste of money. Probably can’t drive either.

Warning to Leica M8 users: Early versions of this faux pas of a camera came with an unprotected sensor, under the guise of superior image quality or some such rot. If you have one of those, enjoy paying Leica $500 for a sensor cleaning because I doubt I would try that on an unprotected sensor in a $6,000 body. Later M8s come with a protective glass (New! Improved! etc.) once the factory realized its error, so the above technique should be fine. You will have to do something because the chances of Leica coming out with a self-cleaning sensor are about as likely as a black man in the Oval Office. Hey, wait a minute ….

November 12, 2008

More Helicon macros

Filed under: Photographs, Technique — Thomas Pindelski @ 8:50 am

Make your macros sing.

I wrote about Helicon Focus recently and for this new inductee to the macro world it’s fair to say that the software opens up new realms in macro photography. This application requires that you take several pictures of your subject, each focused slightly differently, after which it applies some serious processing to stitching together the sharp zones of each into one sharp whole. Magic!

Now your subject must be still and you need to use a tripod (unless you are very lucky doing this handheld, which I think is a long shot) to permit proper stitching of the sharp zones from your constituent images.

I import the originals into Lightroom in the normal way and stack them using the ‘time between pictures’ slider, which allows automatic stacking of pictures taken close together. I then export the stack in TIFF, making sure there are no export size constraints in the Image Sizing section of the export panel. The exported images are then dropped into Helicon Focus, I hit ‘Run’ and ‘Save’, then import the composite image back into Lightroom where it is added to the top of the stack, like so:

The deeper the required depth of focus the more images you need. For reasonably square on subjects with some depth I find 3-5 images works fine. For more drastically sloped ones, more may be needed. Digital film is cheap! Take too many rather than too few. The processing times in Helicon on my MacBook (C2D) are short – four uncompressed 72 mB TIFFs are combined into one new one in the space of thirty seconds. These are full frame TIFFs generated by Lightroom from the RAW originals taken on my Canon 5D.

Even though these images were taken at f/22, the close focus distance and the 100mm focal length of the Canon macro lens make for very shallow depth of field, so I simply set the lens to manual focus, focus on the nearest part of the image and take a picture, repeating with a small adjustment of the focus ring every 8 seconds, the time it takes for my ring flash to recycle to full power. That’s important – you really want your images identically exposed.

And here is the result – taken yesterday after more time spent wading in the tide pools at my top secret Highway One location on the Pacific coast, 22 miles west of home. This chap was hanging out on the underside of a big boulder waiting for high tide. If you do this sort of work, check the tide tables before you go – the best being revealed at low tide. He is maybe 3″ in diameter.


Starfish. 5D, 100mm macro and ring flash, 1/60, f/22, ISO 400, tripod. Four constituent images.

Do this sort of thing at sunset with glancing rays from the sun and add a touch of ring flash to reduce the contrast range and make all tones easily visible (much easier than doing HDR), and you get something like this:


Kelp at sunset. 5D, 100mm macro and ring flash, 1/45, f/22, ISO 400, tripod. Five constituent images.

It’s no surprise if I tell you that the Canon Macro plus Helicon Focus are in the running for my Best Gear of 2008 award.

If you want to see Helicon Focus applied in the more traditional area of photomicrography, take a look at the beautiful images crafted by Charles Krebs.

November 10, 2008

Paris by Night

Filed under: Book reviews, Photographers — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:52 am

One of the finest photography books ever.

I wrote a couple of years ago about Hungarian master photographer Brassaï and made mention of his great book Paris de Nuit in that piece.

I finally tracked down a remaindered copy of this book and the first word that comes to mind is electric, for that best describes the emotive power of these images.

Originally published in 1933, I recall first seeing it in the Kensington Public Library in West London around 1965 or so and recall well how thrilling the work was. This edition includes 62 gorgeously reproduced plates on very heavy, black paper, and you really have to look at the photographs in daylight to get the full depth of tones, all the way down to the inkiest of blacks. This friend of over 45 years remains as fresh and exciting today as it was all that time ago and, were I to compile a list of the ten most essential books of photographs, it would be there without a doubt.

While night photography is not my thing, these images speak not just of superb technique but to the work of one of the greatest photographers of the time who preserves the wonderful city of Paris for modern times. Mercifully, the French have done relatively little to destroy their city (can you say Museé Pompidou or I. M. Pei’s ghastly Louvre pyramid?) and in many places it probably looks little changed today.

Whereas O. Winston Link, the other great night photographer, used his own lighting, Brassaï uses what the city gives him, to haunting effect.

This scan scarcely does the original justice, but the atmosphere is so powerful I swear you can smell the women’s scent when you look at it. Magic.

No wonder that Paris was such a magnet for artists between the wars.

November 9, 2008

Lightroom 2 Trial

Filed under: Lightroom — Thomas Pindelski @ 9:00 am

Trying it out.

I continue to watch the excellent tutorials to be found here and have now downloaded the 30 day free trial of Lightroom 2.1 from the Adobe web site. I delayed doing this as the predicatble raft of bugs in 2.0 has now been largely resolved and discussion boards suggest the application is stable. Never buy Version 1 of anything ….

My first focus is on the graduated density filter and adjustment brush, which are new features of the localized adjustments added in Version 2 of Lightroom.

While I have for ever toyed with the idea of using those slip-on graduated density filters for landscape work, the whole thing has always seemed too clunky. Further, interposing yet another easily scratched surface between object and image has never much appealed to me and the thought of carrying dozens of those filters and all the related gadgetry to attach them to my lens has left me cold.

Well, with Lightroom 2 there is no more need for external filters. Not only can you add a graduated density filter of your choice to selected areas of an image, you can also tilt the horizon for these where necessary, elect the level of graduation and change color, brightness, clarity, contrast, saturation and sharpness in your area(s) of choice. Try that with mechanical attachments!

Here’s a case in point of a landscape with a sloping horizon taken from my front door yesterday. As the original discloses, the lighting was flat, the scene less than interesting and the sky horribly bland.

A few moments work, applying graduated sloping colored filtration to the sky area and selectively darkening the foreground using the new adjustment brush feature (look at the road at the bottom), plus an overall tweak for saturation and clarity, and upping the reds and oranges, and you get a nice Old Master look, like this:


From my front door – the beauty of central California. 5D, 200mm ‘L’, 1/1000, f/4, ISO 400

The ability to make localized graduated adjustments is powerful and Adobe’s implementation superb. It bears watching those videos as there are so few adjustment buttons that you have to learn how they work, but the engineering and user interface are remarkably elegant. Indeed, it was Lightroom’s far more intuitive user interface and logical work flow that made me abandon Aperture. Not to mention the general slugishness of the Apple application regardless, it seems, of how current or fast your computer is. Lightroom flies, the slowest step being localized adjustment brush operations which take a second or so to register on my MacBook (4gB RAM, 2.1gHz C2D CPU).

By the way, when you first fire up Lightroom 2 it will convert your Lightroom 1 catalog for use with the new version, but it also leaves the original Version 1 catalog untouched in the event you decide not to upgrade. (The on screen narrative does not make this clear, implying that your original files are lost). Nice – no need for yet another back-up, though I made one just in case. You should too.

Finally, this screen snap shows the area to which I have applied the graduated effect – the dot is the center point above which things darken. You can also see that I have sloped the graduated density area to replicate the natural slope of the horizon – just drag up or down on one side to slope the area affected.

Lightroom 2 is beginning to look like a keeper.

As for these guys, well, I would be looking for a new day job in their place:


Yesterday’s hardware. Yesterday’s concept.

And if you have a big investment in these, well, sell them in a yard sale and the proceeds may just pay for the upgrade to Lightroom 2!

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress